> [djh previously]
> It's no co-incidence that you emphasise creation in the Code of Art. In the
> West, Dynamic morality is about things which have already been created.
>
> [Arlo]
> The oscillation between destruction and creation is moral evolutionary force.
> I don't think its just 'me' who emphasizes 'creation', I think Pirsig does as
> well. The entirety of the MOQ's hierarchies is the wake of the this
> oscillation, it is the path of "betterness"; Point B is better than Point A.
[djh]
Don't you mean oscillation between stagnation and creation? If that's what you
mean I agree with you.
> [djh previously]
> Alternatively though, there is another type of harmony which is not about a
> balance between two opposing qualities but the entire 'killing' of one of
> those qualities through its perfection and thus its subsequent revealing of
> the DQ which was there all along.
>
> [Arlo]
> The movement towards 'betterness' ('perfection') is, by definition, the
> replacing of static patterns with better ones. The very moment you do
> something 'better' is evidence that two oppositional patterns were evaluated
> and the 'better' one dominated.
[djh]
You are talking about betterness and perfection as if they are defined static
quality things. This is true if you are interested in the quality of static
patterns but this is not what it means to truly perfect something. Here you
seem to assume that Quality, intellectual or otherwise, can only come about as
a result of comparison and evaluation between static quality things. But I can
think of a time when that isn't necessarily the case - Imagine the first
thought ever. How did that come about if it is a result of an intellectual
comparison between oppositional patterns?
> [Arlo]
> As I said, I have no doubt that meditation and ritual can 'free' the mind
> from attending to static patterns and opens the door for Dynamic Quality.
> But, if nothing changes, if you have [Point A -> DQ -> Point A] then I think
> you're missing the point of opening the door to Dynamic Quality in the first
> place. You seem to imply that Zen monks enter this 'killing static patterns'
> state and emerge without any creational/bettering enlightenment at all.
[djh]
Not at all. I don't deny that Zen monks create undefined better things. But my
point is - that is not the goal of Zen. The goal of Zen is enlightenment which
is brought about through the mastery and perfection of the static patterns but
those patterns or the new patterns created are not the goal - the elimination
of them is.
> [Arlo]
> For example, if a mechanic 'ritualizes' his routines so that he can be open
> to Dynamic Quality when repairing his motorcycle, this better produce
> 'better' repair, and if it doesn't then there is little point. And the moment
> his repair is improved (Point B is better than Point A) you have evidence of
> the creational component of the moral evolutionary force.
>
> Maybe the point I should make is that 'creation' is not just 'new' (as in
> something completely different) but is also 'improved'. Any time there is
> movement towards 'betterness' this evidences the creational component of the
> Code of Art.
[djh]
I see that you're focused on the quality of the static patterns which are
created. And I think there is indeed quality to looking at the quality of
static patterns. But my point is a motorcycle mechanic isn't going to be a very
good mechanic if he is continually judging the quality of these patterns and
not trying to work through mastering them. This mastery is not achieved by
simply focusing on the quality of this or that static pattern but through the
perfection and thus killing of them.
> [djh previously]
> Without a 'rejection' of static patterns, the Code of Art would not be
> possible. This is all I have ever stated.
>
> [Arlo]
> Sure, and all I was saying was that its not JUST rejection that is the Code
> of Art but creation as well.
[djh]
And I will say that there are two types of rejection. Only one of those types
is interested in the static quality of what is created, while the other is not.
Yes, Zen Monks create new undefined better things, but that is not the goal of
Zen. Zen mostly just maintains static patterns which is why the rituals of a
temple have changed so little since they were created 800 or so years ago.
> [djh previously]
> Alternatively through, by their killing of all patterns - alternative or
> otherwise, the Zen folks remove all conflict, including conflict between new
> patterns or old patterns.
>
> [Arlo]
> In the moment of pure mediation, in the absence of all static patterns, sure,
> there is no conflict between patterns because they don't exist. But this
> ignores two critical points, namely the "Point A" (static patterns before
> this moment) and "Point B" (static patterns after this moment). If the
> rejection of static patterns and opening of Dynamic Quality does not produce
> ANY discrepancies between A and B, then I'd say it failed to achieve. The
> unavoidable 'conflict' occurs the moment the Zen monk re-enters the world of
> static patterns with 'something better', new patterns to replace the old,
> better patterns to replace the previous ones.
[djh]
Right, but a *Zen monk* who re-enters the world with 'something better'? When
does that ever happen? Do you see any Zen monks going around recruiting folks?
This never happens because that is not the goal of Zen. The goal of Zen is not
the quality of patterns but the wholehearted rejection of them. I get why you
give this example to show that even Zen monks create new, better things which
are in opposition to the old patterns. But I think this misses the point of
Zen. The goal of Zen is not the quality of the resulting patterns. I mean,
just look at a Zen temple. They're mostly mastering the same patterns they did
back in the 13th Century.
> [djh previously]
> Anyway, what do you mean that Phaedrus is an exemplar for the creational
> regrounding of DQ? You seem to think that only Phaedrus (and not Lila)
> created new patterns as a result of following DQ but that is not the case.
>
> [Arlo]
> I'd say only Phaedrus produced better patterns. To nitpick, I'd say Lila
> didn't create anything new at all. She latched on static patterns, to be
> sure, but these are more like an amalgamation of previously existing
> biological and social patterns. For example, consider the difference between
> Cezanne first painting Pines and Rocks, and a sidewalk painter who paints you
> a replica. Your 'replica' may be at the level of minutia 'different' from all
> other replicas (and the original), but it hasn't created anything new, its a
> rearrangement of static patterns rather than something better. (I realize
> this is a huge topical area, and a fascinating one, so if this is something
> you'd like to pursue, maybe this should be a thread in and of itself.)
[djh]
Yes Lila simply created contrary, low quality patterns to the things which had
transpired that she didn't like - aka her Child dying. However these patterns
were still 'new', but just not that good because she hadn't worked through the
problem. I'm happy to discuss this further if you like...
> [djh previously]
> You seem to assume that we can reject static quality without following
> Dynamic Quality. I mean how is that even possible? What is there after an
> actual rejection of static quality if it isn't DQ?
>
> [Arlo]
> No, of course not. But maybe I should've phrased my words better. To restate,
> all three in my example (Lila, Phaedrus and the Hippies) evidence (equally)
> the rejectional component in the pursuit of Dynamic Quality. Something set
> them off on a path to 'better', and that something was Dynamic Quality. But,
> of these three only Phaedrus represents the creational component of Dynamic
> Quality, a return to the world with that 'something better'. Both the Hippies
> and Lila reattached to previous static patterns, and at that moment stopped
> following Dynamic Quality.
>
> The fixation of Lila on a fixation on the rejection, but ultimately by itself
> misses the mark. And why it is maddening here, is because this forum (and
> Horse can correct me if I am wrong) is about the 'creational' component that
> comes after the 'rejection'. Yes, we should reject intellectual patterns,
> question them, etc. but here is the space where we've come back and are
> building something 'better'.
>
> My advice, go out and reject and meditate and sit on a mountaintop and stare
> at the moon and dance by the fire and perform the tea ceremonies... and then,
> inspired by whatever insight this openness to Dynamic Quality brought, come
> here and build something better, create 'better' patterns to replace the old.
> This is why I admire people like Ant, DMB, David Granger, Dan, Matthew
> Crawford, Ron DiSanto, and the others on Ant's site and in this forum who are
> not simply walking around saying 'reject' but who are using the insights
> gained during that time of rejection to actively create something better. (I
> hate lists because I always feel like I'm omitting people I do not mean to,
> so forgive the brevity, there are many others I would include.)
[djh]
I agree with the gist of what you say above but I'd like to dwell on this
sentence..
"..[There are some folks] in this forum not simply walking around saying
'reject' but who are using the insights gained during that time of rejection to
actively create something better. "
Clearly your focus here is on creation of static patterns. But I don't think
you can only create anything of value if you are just focused on the creation
of static quality. I mean creation can come about not just as a result of a
rejection and subsequent creation of static patterns, but as you've also
pointed out - as a result of the killing of present static patterns by
mastering them. And the key point is that in this mastery the focus is not the
creation of static patterns but the 'killing' of them. It is good to be
interested in the static quality which is created, but alternatively it is good
to value the DQ which creates that static quality. Both are important.
So the goal is not what is statically created but the goal is the moment
*before* something is created. Zen is about maintaining that openness to
static patterns to the extent where it becomes an indestructible
characteristic. As is explained in Zen in the Art Of Archery..
"The swordmaster is as unself-conscious as the beginner. The nonchalance which
he forfeited at the beginning of his instruction he wins back again at the end
as an indestructible characteristic. But, unlike the beginner, he holds himself
in reserve, is quiet and unassuming, without the least desire to show off.
Between the stages of apprenticeship and mastership there lie long and eventful
years of untiring practice."
> [djh previously]
> I see that you're using the 'rejecting attending to patterns' in the way I
> would say that 'reject interest in the comparative static quality of the
> patterns'. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we are pretty much the
> saying the same thing here?
>
> [Arlo]
> Yes, I'd agree these are similar statements.
[djh]
I'm glad we agree on this point because I think if you see this distinction you
should be able to understand what I'm saying.
> [djh previously]
> I disagree with you though that rejection without creation is immoral. For
> starters how could anything be moral if an original rejection (without there
> yet being any creation) be immoral?
>
> [Arlo]
> I didn't say that the rejection of patterns is ipso facto immoral. What I
> said was that the moral force is in the oscillation between rejection and
> creation. In the case of suicide, as was the example, the act is pure
> rejection/destruction without any creational component, and thus I'd hold
> that act to be immoral, and that immorality derives from the fact that
> because of this the evolutionary trajectory is weakened. I've been avoiding
> quotes, but I'll make a small exception here.
>
> "The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it weakens a
> society's Dynamic capability-its capability for change and evolution." (LILA)
>
> This quite easily frames the same argument against suicide. Both are 'killing
> patterns', but leaves the creational component weakened.
[djh]
As said above I would put the oscillation between stagnation and and creation
but I agree with you about suicide destroying our cultures ability to respond
to DQ and therefore it is immoral because, as you say, it 'leaves the
creational component weakened'.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
